Given the recent ISIS release, appropriately titled "Why We Hate you and Want to Fight You", in the Jihadist periodical Dabiq in which the group who've come to visually represent "extremism" [note the intentional exclusion of "Islamic" for full sarcastic value] have systematically explained why they hate "us" and want to fight and kill us, can we finally dispel with the titled notion that this has nothing to do with religion? Can we finally put to bed the "Western Imperialism" excuse-making and pedestal pushing from the likes of Noam Chomsky and others who have tirelessly fought the notion that religion is even a minority cause, let alone a major factor behind their behavioral choices?

For those who have not read it, I'll link you below, but in the interest of time, I can tell you that of the six points made, exactly two have nothing or little to do with religion. If these six points made represent the entirety of their justification (and why shouldn't they considering they are coming straight from the horse's mouth?), that means more than 65% of their cause is, as they believe and proclaim, divinely justified and religiously mandated. Forget the fact they are telling you it's religious for a second. How is this still not an acceptable number to emphatically throw this notion that their religion is irrelevant directly into the fire?

This isn't about blaming religion here, either. I'm aware my reputation precedes me, so before I'm charged with made up terminologies like "Islamaphobia", understand this -- this is about having an honest discussion about a real world problem that we cannot have any hope of curing if the conversation always begins with obfuscations about the core nature of the issue.

The constant outcry, mostly from the [regressive] Left, that this has nothing to do with religion is just as unhelpful that the outcries that it has everything to do with it. Neither is true. But religion has something to do with it. Clearly. In no unsure terms we've now been told this from the group themselves.

This extremism nothing to do with the Islamic religion. Terrorists can claim they are undertaking their business in the name of Islam, that doesn't make it true.

Tomorrow, I could create a bomb, throw it in Montreal, and blame Shawn Michaels and the WWE. In my own, twisted head, I may think I'm avenging Bret Hart for the screwjob, but that doesn't mean it would hold any weight whatsoever, it doesn't mean Shawn or the WWE are at fault, and it doesn't mean everyone who watches WWE is an evil, bomb making terrorist and it doesn't mean WWE should be vilified or scrutinised.

^ That sounds so ridiculously stupid, surely no one would even make that connection, right?! Yet it happens daily to Muslims.

If these people weren't causing issues in the name of Islam, it'd be something else. They are making their ideals up in their mind, and twisting the teachings of the Qu'ran to fit. Anything can be taken out of context, or manipulated if you try hard enough. I remember reading a similar thing from a terror group, where the quote they used wasn't even from the Qu'ran - it didn't stop the media vilifying it.

We should be able to have discussions without fear of offending people. But in this day and age, with a large proportion of people being so misinformed and uneducated about Islam, it turns into a 'hate all the Muslims' platform. See: Donald Trump.

The group tells you they are acting because of religion. You refuse to believe it and instead proceed to tell them what they are doing it for. This is exactly the kind of obfuscation I'm taking about.

How can we ever have an honest discussion about this when that is a response you expect me to take seriously?

Your HBK-bomb analogy might have weight if that were actually happening, or ever happened, but it isn't, and hasn't. Unlike violence and terrorism in the Islamic world, which happens regularly. That's an utter false equivalence.

Every effort for honest debate and solution seeking is stopped dead in its tracks with responses like yours because the moment the religion is brought up, the criticism is met with cries of racism and "Islamaphobia" in worst case scenarios and obscurantism and obfuscation in the lesser ones.

Absolving Islam of any blame helps nothing. It only hurts, just as often and just as awfully as blaming it entirely. Which I have not done, mind you.

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rayne

The IWC aren't a real group, just an internal conglomoration of the people who say things you don't like.

The group tells you they are acting because of religion. You refuse to believe it and instead proceed to tell them what they are doing it for. This is exactly the kind of obfuscation I'm taking about.

How can we ever have an honest discussion about this when that is a response you expect me to take seriously?

But that was my point - just because someone says they are acting in some way, just because they shout out words like 'Allahu Akbar' doesn't mean the religion itself is at fault. My response was ridiculous, because it was supposed to be. You see the ridiculousness in my analogy, but not in what the media does every day to Muslims.

Are there issues with religion? Absolutely. But terrorists are uninformed and uneducated on the Qu'ran, twisting it in ways that completely change the original meaning. Terrorism isn't a requirement of Islam. It isn't taught in the Qu'ran - it's taught and encouraged by a manipulative minority to seek their personal goals. So, what do you actually want to have a discussion about? What do you suggest we do?

I didn't say the religion itself is at fault. I said the religion itself is part of the problem, and that it can't be absolved of wrong-doing if we expect to have an honest approach to solving the problem. Geopolitics and socioeconomics also play a role, as does historic tribalism, but it's the religion that's being used, consistently, to justify this behavior. Because the religion prescribes this behavior. It's the religion itself that is being used to craft and enforce horrific policies (found in well-respected Hadith) and laws (like Sharia) in predominantly Islamic nations where this type of religiously inspired and justified terror takes place so often.

I also don't deny the media doesn't help matters. Especially the American media. Especially the Right. But this is another strawman you're erecting to attack instead of actually asking me what my actual positions and opinions are.

I do have solutions I'd love to discuss, but how can you expect me to share them if you can't even agree that religion shoulders some of the blame here? I'd be wasting my time because my solutions account for this, which tells me you'd reject them outright for even mildly criticizing the faith as part of finding a solution for peace.

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rayne

The IWC aren't a real group, just an internal conglomoration of the people who say things you don't like.

I didn't say the religion itself is at fault. I said the religion itself is part of the problem, and that it can't be absolved of wrong-doing if we expect to have an honest approach to solving the problem. Geopolitics and socioeconomics also play a role, as does historic tribalism, but it's the religion that's being used, consistently, to justify this behavior. Because the religion prescribes this behavior. It's the religion itself that is being used to craft and enforce horrific policies (found in well-respected Hadith) and laws (like Sharia) in predominantly Islamic nations where this type of religiously inspired and justified terror takes place so often.

My reply wasn't at anything you specifically said in regards to attacking the religion, it was a general point regarding what happens when this is brought up - Islam is attacked, and people generalise extremism with the religion - they are 2 very different things.

I don't believe Islam 'prescribes' this behaviour - it doesn't. That's not to say I agree with a lot of the Qu'ran, but there's difference between people misusing the book, and saying Islam prescribes terrorism. And it's that belief that you just professed, which I and others take issue with.

Quote:

I also don't deny the media doesn't help matters. Especially the American media. Especially the Right. But this is another strawman you're erecting to attack instead of actually asking me what my actual positions and opinions are.

I literally asked you, in my last post, what your actual thoughts were - clearly asked for your solutions. I have no idea what you're getting at here.

Quote:

I do have solutions I'd love to discuss, but how can you expect me to share them if you can't even agree that religion shoulders some of the blame here? I'd be wasting my time because my solutions account for this, which tells me you'd reject them outright for even mildly criticizing the faith as part of finding a solution for peace.

I mean, the Symposium is there for exactly that reason - to discuss solutions to things people disagree on? Feel free to criticise the faith -if I believed everything the Qu'ran said, I would be a Muslim. But I don't see what solutions there are, in regards to Islam, that won't end up attacking the faith, and those who follow it. Because there's a difference between criticising and attacking, that the vast majority of people don't seem to understand. If you have a way to do so, I'd genuinely love to hear it.

Sure, religion is a part of it. Whether or not the terrorists are actually following doctrine is up for debate because some say they are, some say they're not, some say they're using a mix of actual religious doctrine along with some of their own. Regardless of what I believe or don't believe, the terrorists have stated that their faith is one of the key motivating factors and whether it's actual legit Islamic doctrine or not makes no real difference to them.

If the various media reports are true, then a very hefty portion of Islamic extremists are very poor, uneducated and sometimes flat out illiterate people that the higher ups in the organizations actively want because they make excellent grist for the mill, so to speak; these are the sort of people that are easier to indoctrinate because of their lack of education and make great foot soldiers.

I watched a documentary a few weeks back on CNN produced by Fareed Zakaria entitled "Why They Hate Us" and the program alleges that one of they primary, motivating factors, I mean what some say is what started the whole idea of hatred of the west among many Muslims was because of the 1940s pop song "Baby, It's Cold Outside." I can't remember all the details exactly, just that there was a very, very conservative Muslim student attending a party and was absolutely scandalized by how people were behaving at this party. The men & women were dancing close together, the women didn't have their bodies covered, he thought the song was an affront advocating premarital sex or sex outside of any marital relationship, there was alcohol being served etc. I forget this man's name, I've been wracking my brain trying to think of it but it just won't come to me, but he returned home to a Middle Eastern country and wrote about what he'd seen at this party and it outraged many Muslims. He made it out to be like some wild Roman orgy in which every sort of sexually perverted debauchery that could be named was going on but it was simply just people at a party dancing; This was just at the dawn of the 1950s, one of the most socially conservative eras in the country's history and this student, as I said, was about as much of a conservative Muslim as it gets. So yeah, if the little documentary is accurate, then this whole thing of the United States being "The Great Satan" started because of a late 40s pop song.

__________________"What Do I Know Of Cultured Ways, The Gilt, The Craft And The Lie?
I, Who Was Born In A Naked Land And Bred In The Open Sky.
The Subtle Tongue, The Sophist Guile, They Fail When The Broadswords Sing.
Rush In And Die Dogs - I Was A Man Before I Was King."

Even if religion didn't exist, people would always find a means to make war, named religion or not.

The only part that religion plays here, is that it's being used as a tool by the leaders in order to have the sheep (people) make the wars, in order for them to make $$$.

Religion is like a drug: you use it the right way, you can cure a disease.. you use it wrong and you can do great harm.

PS: Those who say that "faith motivates us" or "god made me do it" are the biggest liars in the world. First of all they try to justify what they're doing by sounding holy and in some ways not to be seen us bad guys. In their eyes those suicide bombers are heroes. Second of all, even without religion, man would still find an excuse to kill other people. So religion is not to blame. Blame humanity.

My reply wasn't at anything you specifically said in regards to attacking the religion, it was a general point regarding what happens when this is brought up - Islam is attacked, and people generalise extremism with the religion - they are 2 very different things.

So you quote me in a manner that appears to assign these responses to me, but didn't mean to, and didn't explicitly state that you were addressing statements or issues I didn't make? And I'm supposed to infer all of this correctly, what, by mind-reading?

Quote:

I don't believe Islam 'prescribes' this behaviour - it doesn't. That's not to say I agree with a lot of the Qu'ran, but there's difference between people misusing the book, and saying Islam prescribes terrorism. And it's that belief that you just professed, which I and others take issue with.

I'm not going to get into a scripture war with you here. The texts and passages are quite clear on prescribing violence, and the Hadith are even worse. ISIS throwing gays from rooftops? That comes from various Hadith that mandate to take homosexuals to the highest cliffs and throw them from them. If you want to skirt around that by claiming they "misinterpreted" it, by all means, but you're deluding yourself.

Quote:

I literally asked you, in my last post, what your actual thoughts were - clearly asked for your solutions. I have no idea what you're getting at here.

Is this another example of you addressing me, directly, but not actually addressing me? You responded to me, directly, and said “You see the ridiculousness in my analogy, but not in what the media does every day to Muslims”. This insinuates that I don’t blame the media for their portrayal of Muslims — something I have yet to provide an opinion on. Hence the strawman.

Quote:

I mean, the Symposium is there for exactly that reason - to discuss solutions to things people disagree on? Feel free to criticise the faith -if I believed everything the Qu'ran said, I would be a Muslim. But I don't see what solutions there are, in regards to Islam, that won't end up attacking the faith, and those who follow it. Because there's a difference between criticising and attacking, that the vast majority of people don't seem to understand. If you have a way to do so, I'd genuinely love to hear it.

Sure, in the most colloquial sense, but as I said in the OP and repeatedly since in my responses to you, I can’t provide my solutions/opinions in a manner in which I feel we can debate them reasonably if you we can’t even agree that religion shoulders some of the blame. Because my solutions are going to account for that, which means they’re going to be side-stepped in defense of the religion in spite of the evidence.

I even said in the OP that this isn’t about attacking religion. It’s about about having an honest discussion about a real world problem that we cannot have any hope of curing if the conversation always begins with obfuscations about the core nature of the issue, which is religious in nature. The religious aspect has to be up for scrutiny, or every effort at problem solving is futile.

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rayne

The IWC aren't a real group, just an internal conglomoration of the people who say things you don't like.